|
The following is a list of behaviors that will get immediate bans:
1. Whining about stream
2. Bashing other games
3. Flaming other users
4. Bashing players
5. Complaining about imbalance
Basically just be respectful. Aside from that, enjoy the games, make sure you bring an umbrella and have some delicious waffles! (#) |
On August 28 2011 07:06 Herry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 07:01 Grumbels wrote:
If anyone's curious about how the exact process of Koreans becoming better than foreigners works, you should watch, for example, Nal_Ra's Old Boy series that is available on Youtube with subtitles. Every aspect of their play gets analyzed and broken down by virtue of the coaches and helpful teammates; there are always people at or above your level around to challenge you, unlike something like the NA ladder.
It took Korea a while to set up proper conditions for Starcraft II and I think not all teams are quite there yet, but they're already improving faster than foreigners by an order of magnitude. Haypro and Idra looked like complete scrubs vs Bomber, like any pro v random masters player match. He just has more knowledge about what to do and as a result his opponents lose confidence and start to play risky/bad. exactly. "You are only as good as your Best Opponent." Skill level increases exponentially. You can train every hour of every day in any sport but it will not make you anywhere near the best player.
Yup, everyone should watch the Old Boy series to see the commitment and dedication involved too!
|
|
|
On August 28 2011 16:14 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:04 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:59 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:56 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:53 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:49 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:46 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:43 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:41 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:38 Kamikazess wrote:
[quote]
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one. Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play. What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance. WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint. You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible. That's your logic. That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant. The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas. And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated. You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables. I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying. Is he really the overall best player when he has won as many series as the player he lost to? Series are more important than games.
I think that the real problem is to understand what I am trying to say.
MLG competition has 2 different stages: Pool Play and Bracket Play.
In Pool Play, a bunch of players are grouped up, have to play against each other, to determine which one is the better overall player. They play the same amount of Best of 3 series, against the same players. If player A needs 11 games to win 4 series and lose 1, and player B needs 15 games to win 4 series and lose 1, who is the best overall player? Even if one of player B victories is over player A, he did a poorer overall job in the group, losing more games, while having the same amount of series victories. And the objective of Pool Play is to determine who is the better overall player, not who is the better head-to-head player.
In Bracket Play, the format is different. One player will face another, in a Bo3 series, and whoever wins will advance to the next round. The objective here is to determine who is the better player in this specific match-up.
And with this explanation, I finally abandon this discussion. =)
|
btw wats up with the lack of content w/ this mlg? havnt seen any interviews yet
|
On August 28 2011 16:28 TT1 wrote:
btw wats up with the lack of content w/ this mlg? havnt seen any interviews yet
JP has lost his passion.
|
On August 28 2011 16:24 Kamikazess wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:14 jmbthirteen wrote:On August 28 2011 16:04 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:59 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:56 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:53 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:49 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:46 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:43 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:41 wats0n wrote:
[quote]
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play. What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance. WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint. You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible. That's your logic. That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant. The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas. And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated. You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables. I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying. Is he really the overall best player when he has won as many series as the player he lost to? Series are more important than games. I think that the real problem is to understand what I am trying to say. MLG competition has 2 different stages: Pool Play and Bracket Play. In Pool Play, a bunch of players are grouped up, have to play against each other, to determine which one is the better overall player. They play the same amount of Best of 3 series, against the same players. If player A needs 11 games to win 4 series and lose 1, and player B needs 15 games to win 4 series and lose 1, who is the best overall player? Even if one of player B victories is over player A, he did a poorer overall job in the group, losing more games, while having the same amount of series victories. And the objective of Pool Play is to determine who is the better overall player, not who is the better head-to-head player. In Bracket Play, the format is different. One player will face another, in a Bo3 series, and whoever wins will advance to the next round. The objective here is to determine who is the better player in this specific match-up. And with this explanation, I finally abandon this discussion. =)
I know what you are saying, but I disagree with it. I disagree with the notion that Select played better because he Slush 2-0 while DRG beat Slush 2-1 and beat Select 2-0. You put too much emphasis on individual games, when it is series that matter at MLG.
|
On August 28 2011 16:24 Kamikazess wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:14 jmbthirteen wrote:On August 28 2011 16:04 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:59 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:56 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:53 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:49 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:46 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:43 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:41 wats0n wrote:
[quote]
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play. What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance. WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint. You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible. That's your logic. That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant. The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas. And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated. You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables. I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying. Is he really the overall best player when he has won as many series as the player he lost to? Series are more important than games. I think that the real problem is to understand what I am trying to say. MLG competition has 2 different stages: Pool Play and Bracket Play. In Pool Play, a bunch of players are grouped up, have to play against each other, to determine which one is the better overall player. They play the same amount of Best of 3 series, against the same players. If player A needs 11 games to win 4 series and lose 1, and player B needs 15 games to win 4 series and lose 1, who is the best overall player? Even if one of player B victories is over player A, he did a poorer overall job in the group, losing more games, while having the same amount of series victories. And the objective of Pool Play is to determine who is the better overall player, not who is the better head-to-head player. In Bracket Play, the format is different. One player will face another, in a Bo3 series, and whoever wins will advance to the next round. The objective here is to determine who is the better player in this specific match-up. And with this explanation, I finally abandon this discussion. =)
And the way MLG does pool play determines who the best player in the group is.
If you want to eliminate your feelings about what really determines a winner how about MLG does BO1s for Pool Play ... O THE CHAOS THAT WOULD CAUSE.
ANYWAY
I can't believe people are really arguing over this. It's not like this is the first MLG where H2H was used to determine rankings after pool play was over (it happens almost EVERY MLG) so why wasn't a fuss made all those other times? O wait because a foreigner could have possibly gotten first in the group over a korean. Nevermind. Continue...
Anyway, I was more interested in figuring out the whole Trickster, SLush, HerO being tied and who got what placing more than DRG vs SeleCT.
All even if you go by H2H. Same Series Score. Overall though Hero is 4-7, while Trickster and SLush are 5-6 so SLush gets the highest ranking since he has the best overall Win/Lose and beat Trickster H2H. Hero gets lowest because he had the worst overall Win/Lose.
... Now that was interesting.
|
On August 28 2011 16:30 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:24 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 16:14 jmbthirteen wrote:On August 28 2011 16:04 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:59 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:56 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:53 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:49 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:46 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:43 Kamikazess wrote:
[quote]
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance. WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint. You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible. That's your logic. That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant. The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas. And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated. You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables. I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying. Is he really the overall best player when he has won as many series as the player he lost to? Series are more important than games. I think that the real problem is to understand what I am trying to say. MLG competition has 2 different stages: Pool Play and Bracket Play. In Pool Play, a bunch of players are grouped up, have to play against each other, to determine which one is the better overall player. They play the same amount of Best of 3 series, against the same players. If player A needs 11 games to win 4 series and lose 1, and player B needs 15 games to win 4 series and lose 1, who is the best overall player? Even if one of player B victories is over player A, he did a poorer overall job in the group, losing more games, while having the same amount of series victories. And the objective of Pool Play is to determine who is the better overall player, not who is the better head-to-head player. In Bracket Play, the format is different. One player will face another, in a Bo3 series, and whoever wins will advance to the next round. The objective here is to determine who is the better player in this specific match-up. And with this explanation, I finally abandon this discussion. =) I know what you are saying, but I disagree with it. I disagree with the notion that Select played better because he Slush 2-0 while DRG beat Slush 2-1 and beat Select 2-0. You put too much emphasis on individual games, when it is series that matter at MLG.
Well, the series should be the most important, of course, but my idea is that series are a subproduct of games. It isn't possible to win a series, without winning games.
|
On August 28 2011 16:29 Kamikazess wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:28 TT1 wrote:
btw wats up with the lack of content w/ this mlg? havnt seen any interviews yet JP has lost his passion.
na i meant from the solo ineterviewers, theres always a bunch of ppl that release content at every mlg
|
Top 4 korean? Holy fucking shit what a suprise...
Also, inc vs machine eh? Looks like we're guaranteed an EG vs Rain MU and one of them is guaranteed some big big points for getting lucky.
|
On August 28 2011 16:37 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:29 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 16:28 TT1 wrote:
btw wats up with the lack of content w/ this mlg? havnt seen any interviews yet JP has lost his passion. na i meant from the solo ineterviewers, theres always a bunch of ppl that release content at every mlg
It would be nice if they did something like NASL, between games. But with less awkwardness. It would help to fill the downtimes, too.
|
On August 28 2011 16:37 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:29 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 16:28 TT1 wrote:
btw wats up with the lack of content w/ this mlg? havnt seen any interviews yet JP has lost his passion. na i meant from the solo ineterviewers, theres always a bunch of ppl that release content at every mlg
You mean ... like these? http://www.youtube.com/user/compLexityINSIDER
LOOK HARDER LAZY PRO GAMER. jeesh.
|
On August 28 2011 16:37 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:29 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 16:28 TT1 wrote:
btw wats up with the lack of content w/ this mlg? havnt seen any interviews yet JP has lost his passion. na i meant from the solo ineterviewers, theres always a bunch of ppl that release content at every mlg
ESFI has some good stuff up
|
Guys, help me out here I got the following problem:
I just wanted to watch the restream right now, and when I try to forward on the timebar a blue screen appears saying "No Stream" .. what is this?? How can I fix it? It worked for the last 2 hours, and now suddenly this comes up. Any Ideas?
|
can somebody expalin why naniwa is 2nd in group, huk 3rd and rain 4th?
|
On August 28 2011 16:24 Kamikazess wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:14 jmbthirteen wrote:On August 28 2011 16:04 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:59 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:56 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:53 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:49 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:46 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:43 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:41 wats0n wrote:
[quote]
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play. What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance. WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint. You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible. That's your logic. That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant. The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas. And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated. You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables. I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying. Is he really the overall best player when he has won as many series as the player he lost to? Series are more important than games. I think that the real problem is to understand what I am trying to say. MLG competition has 2 different stages: Pool Play and Bracket Play. In Pool Play, a bunch of players are grouped up, have to play against each other, to determine which one is the better overall player. They play the same amount of Best of 3 series, against the same players. If player A needs 11 games to win 4 series and lose 1, and player B needs 15 games to win 4 series and lose 1, who is the best overall player? Even if one of player B victories is over player A, he did a poorer overall job in the group, losing more games, while having the same amount of series victories. And the objective of Pool Play is to determine who is the better overall player, not who is the better head-to-head player. In Bracket Play, the format is different. One player will face another, in a Bo3 series, and whoever wins will advance to the next round. The objective here is to determine who is the better player in this specific match-up. And with this explanation, I finally abandon this discussion. =)
Completely agree with your thought process. I don't think there's any question that SelecT played better in his pool than DRG seeing as DRG lost an additional game than SelecT, whereas both won the same amount of games. That's if we are looking at pure results though - going in and analyzing their play game by game would take a bit too long.
But at the end of the day, putting DRG at No.1 in the group just makes more sense, due in part to the head to head victory against SelecT - and one could make the argument that dropping the series to Trickster was a bit of a fluke. You could really go either way with it and have a good reason supporting it, but it just feels better the way it is.
|
Dumslim fightiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
So sweet he just kept on winning
|
Funny stuff, Naniwa, Huk and Rain, in the matches betweem them, each one has 1 win, and all the scores 2-1. Time to flip the coin? lol
|
On August 28 2011 17:09 andis35 wrote:
can somebody expalin why naniwa is 2nd in group, huk 3rd and rain 4th?
I'd assume it's based on seeds going into the tournament, since it was a total three way tie by other measures (individual games won, and person vs person record). Naniwa had the highest seed going in, then Huk, then Rain. So that would make sense.
|
On August 28 2011 17:11 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 16:24 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 16:14 jmbthirteen wrote:On August 28 2011 16:04 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:59 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:56 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:53 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:49 Kamikazess wrote:On August 28 2011 15:46 wats0n wrote:On August 28 2011 15:43 Kamikazess wrote:
[quote]
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance. WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint. You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible. That's your logic. That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant. The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas. And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated. You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables. I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying. Is he really the overall best player when he has won as many series as the player he lost to? Series are more important than games. I think that the real problem is to understand what I am trying to say. MLG competition has 2 different stages: Pool Play and Bracket Play. In Pool Play, a bunch of players are grouped up, have to play against each other, to determine which one is the better overall player. They play the same amount of Best of 3 series, against the same players. If player A needs 11 games to win 4 series and lose 1, and player B needs 15 games to win 4 series and lose 1, who is the best overall player? Even if one of player B victories is over player A, he did a poorer overall job in the group, losing more games, while having the same amount of series victories. And the objective of Pool Play is to determine who is the better overall player, not who is the better head-to-head player. In Bracket Play, the format is different. One player will face another, in a Bo3 series, and whoever wins will advance to the next round. The objective here is to determine who is the better player in this specific match-up. And with this explanation, I finally abandon this discussion. =) Completely agree with your thought process. I don't think there's any question that SelecT played better in his pool than DRG seeing as DRG lost an additional game than SelecT, whereas both won the same amount of games. That's if we are looking at pure results though - going in and analyzing their play game by game would take a bit too long. But at the end of the day, putting DRG at No.1 in the group just makes more sense, due in part to the head to head victory against SelecT - and one could make the argument that dropping the series to Trickster was a bit of a fluke. You could really go either way with it and have a good reason supporting it, but it just feels better the way it is.
I also completely agree with the above analysis. Pool play is generallydesigned to sort the players overall. It doesn't make sense for MLG to use head-to-head (comparing player A and player B in a vaccum) before score difference (comparing player A and player B in the overall environment). If MLG wants pool play is designed to sort the players on their overall performance, they have to look at score differentials before head-to-head IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
